The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing
|Subject: Re: Conflicting Info||Date: 10/13/1998 5:24 PM|
|Author: TMFPixy||Number: 5997 of 81362|
4) He firmly stated that since 1950 mutual funds have historically outperformed the S&P and Dow.
In-ter-est-ing. Did he give you the brand name of whatever it was he was smoking? My data show that 75 equity funds existing in 1950 are still in business today. Of that total, precisely 4 have outperformed the S&P for the past 20 years. Golly, that's a strong showing! I'm sure glad he knows his history.
6) Said paying expense ratio fees was a good thing, as it takes money to make money. (he didn't comment on 12b-1 fees)
That's a classic we all should remember. John Glassman wrote an article in the Washington Post last week entitled "Beware High Fund Fees." He had CDA/Wiesenberger, a firm that tracks mutual funds, compare the fees and performance of load and no-load funds. The 704 equity funds in the study that charged 0.51 percent to 0.99 percent had an average annual return of 21.13% over the past three years. The 749 funds that charged 1.50 percent to 1.99 percent averaged just 18.68% per year, a difference that is larger than the difference in fees alone. A reasonable person could conclude that the lower fee funds not only are cheaper, but they are managed better, too.
IMHO, you're better off without this clown.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|